How wearing a hard-hat can threaten wildlife

Environmental consultants are now often so hamstrung by extreme health and safety rules they can no longer conduct proper field surveys to detect threatened species.

LAST YEAR I SAW A PHOTO of two blokes who were conducting a fauna survey in Queensland in 1978. One is wearing a shirt with the sleeves rolled up and a pair of 'stubbies' (very short shorts for the more youthful and urbane among you). The other is also wearing stubbies, and nothing else other than (possibly) underwear. He is either bare-footed or in thongs. The grass makes this difficult to ascertain but he is certainly not wearing shoes or boots. Neither wears a hat and one carries a rifle and a bag slung over his shoulder. This bag may contain water, a first aid kit and other items for their safety. But I doubt it.

This photograph resonates with me as I put out my first Elliot trap as part of a fauna survey circa 1978, although I wore a shirt to cover my less-than-manly chest and didn't carry a firearm. I continue to conduct fauna surveys, mostly when I work as a consultant and hence often for mining or coal-seam gas companies (yes, I do sleep at night). But how I long for those halcyon days of the late 70s when you could be blissfully unconcerned about your personal safety and that of your colleagues.

This is because my health and safety is now paramount in the minds, or at least procedures, of many of my employers. Apparently, nothing is of greater import to them. Before I can step forth to even glance at a bird or lunge at a lizard I must show proof that I have undergone rigorous training and seemingly endless, repetitive and largely inappropriate inductions. Strangely enough, I am seldom asked for proof that I can actually identify fauna. The details of what transpires before I venture forth into the field could be a tome in itself, but let's just deal with the field work.

The burdens of safety

It is commonplace that I am obliged to wear a hardhat (even in treeless paddocks); high-visibility clothing (presumably so wildlife can elude me more easily); long-sleeved shirts with the sleeves buttoned at the wrist; long trousers; steel-capped boots; and safety glasses. I may be required to wear gloves, or at least have them hanging from my belt for ease and speed of deployment. I may not be allowed to carry a knife (let alone a gun), but I may have to carry a GPS (for my safety rather than recording the location of fauna), EPIRB, UHF radio, first aid kit, five kilograms of water, sunscreen, insect repellent and, albeit rarely, a defibrillator.

Of course, I also carry whatever equipment I need to conduct the actual fauna work, which can be substantial. The decline in my lizard-catching skills during 'herp searches' would appear to be attributable not just to middle-age. In many instances the greatest risk I face to my health and safety is complying with health and safety procedures. No wonder I have a bad back.

It is very unusual for me to be allowed out alone and, very occasionally, I have been forced to share my field work with paramedics to ensure it was safe. I know I have failed their standards at least once, because a colleague saw me in a subsequent presentation as an example of someone behaving unsafely.

The practice of having supernumerary staff more likely to hinder than enhance my work reached its zenith recently when I was one of four field workers accompanied by up to 12 other people, most of whom didn't leave the immediate vicinity of their vehicles and four of whom were occupational health and safety (OH&S) staff, who often argued with each other about what was and was not safe. That we were seldom more than 50 metres from a busy road or worksite didn't assuage their touching concern for our welfare. This concern was so profound that, despite the stifling tropical heat and humidity, we were obliged to do warm-up exercises, in full PPE (personal protective equipment), including hardhat, to ensure that we started work suitably 'warmed up'. Fauna surveys may become an extreme sport.

The nanny regime

It is often a requirement that I am breathalysed before starting work, either sporadically or daily, depending on my client's procedures. For one project, a two-person OH&S team met me and my colleague in the field with a breathalyser. They included themselves in the random selection process to identify the sole testee. On most mornings one of them drew the short straw and was breath-tested by the other, before I was allowed to go about my work. I wasn't tested in the field even once but nonetheless had to wait for this process to be completed.

On two other projects it was unacceptable to urinate in the field, requiring me to travel up to 40 minutes to a designated toilet. These were both on working cattle stations where, presumably, the cattle were toilet-trained. Without bladder synchronisation, this rule meant a two person team would waste more than 2½ hours a day on a single toilet break each. No explanation was ever provided. Perhaps nappies should be added to my equipment.

I have also found myself prohibited from using a crow bar to strike the ground when installing pitfall traps, because it was designated as only suitable for leverage. An excavation permit has been required before inserting even a small metal peg in the ground. I've not been allowed to change a flat tyre as this is an emergency situation requiring specialist assistance.

Government approvals for projects are much easier to get if rare species are predicted rather than demonstrated

I've been refused permission to climb into the tray of a ute to retrieve trapping equipment as I didn't have a working at heights permit. I was told that the minimum height at which a working at height permit was required had been abolished. When I remarked that this meant we couldn't get into or out of the 4WD I was met with the sort of look that suggested my card was being marked.

I've been repeatedly denied access to sites at night for reasons that have never been adequately explained. Maybe they just intuited there was no nocturnal wildlife present. And staying on site, even in station dwellings, is often prohibited, if only because of complexities with gaining permission through the chain-of-command. This means that there are often significant distances to be driven between accommodation and the survey area. Companies often have default access procedures that make night work especially difficult to organise, make pre-dawn starts difficult and limit field time by imposing substantial breaks. I could go on, but you probably have the picture by now.

Not good for wildlife either

So why is my whinging about work conditions appearing on an environment website?

Some of the data I collect ends up in the environmental impact statements (EISs) that are meant to guide regulatory bodies when they approve or deny projects or set the conditions under which these may proceed. At least in theory, the data I do or don't collect can decide whether a large development goes ahead, though it is more likely to influence approval conditions. But health and safety rules have become so burdensome that often I can no longer work properly.

A development project that fails to achieve good ecological outcomes does not necessarily reflect the wishes of the consultants involved (please restrain your cynicism). In my experience, ecologists undertaking survey work have the best interests of the environment and its denizens at heart (that's why they studied environmental science or something like it). And the environmental staff of mines and coal-seam gas companies invariably have green hearts. But all are potentially hampered by a very large number of constraints, mostly beyond their control.

The constraints do not necessarily result in an EIS that fails to identify the key issues. A good consultant relies substantially on database searches and habitat quality assessment to determine environmental values and predict the presence or absence of threatened species. The write-up for even the most comprehensive field survey is likely to suggest that some species were present but not recorded. But government approvals for projects are much easier to get if rare species are predicted rather than demonstrated.

Much of what I have described is comparatively recent to the industry and no one project I've been part of has included all these constraints. But the tape grows ever more restrictive, and I can envisage a future when it prevents fauna surveys altogether.

The rules are seldom designed with fauna ecologists in mind. They instead reflect an inflexibility by companies whose typical activities on a mine, for example, are indeed hazardous and who take their duty of care seriously. I defy the comprehension of OH&S staff when, for example, I point out that venomous snakes cannot be held safely by someone even wearing thick gloves. There is a complete disconnect between the operation of a good fauna survey and fulfilment of OH&S policy.

The government wants to reduce 'green tape' to speed up the decision-making process on development projects. They should at the same time encourage companies to abandon this nanny-state approach to field work, to free us from the OH&S tape that prevents us from properly surveying fauna and flora, and which increases costs to industry when OH&S staff spend their days trailing ecologists in the field. The health and safety of wildlife may depend on it.

Terry Reis is a self-employed fauna ecologist, working as an environmental consultant and a wildlife and interpretative guide.

Actions

Share

Comments (111)

Bec :

18 Feb 2015 10:50:56pm

As a person who employs environmental consultants on mine and project sites this attitude is very concerning. You get paid to sit through inductions and various risk assessments so that you can go home safe. Common risks with field work include sun exposure, tic and snake bites, working in remote areas and sometimes around water bodies. PPE is a way to protect you from these risks. If you are working in a grassy paddock and you feel that wearing your hard hat will hinder your work then ask about a hard hat exemption. Not only are you putting your safety at risk if you don't follow the sites procedures you are putting my job and reputation at risk as your supervisor. It is a very small world in environmental consultanting for mine and project sites and if you are seen to not take safety seriously or provide a quality service, then word will spread.

James M. Shields PhD :

17 Mar 2014 1:34:40pm

Too, too good. I say horses for courses - I have no problem wearing useful, even precautionary, safety gear like hard hats in forests, hi-viz gear on logging sites or road-side surveys, but I do hate to waste time carrying a fire extinguisher to a swamp or a fire-tanker with pump to a desert - both of which I have been required to do....May good sense prevail.

BEN :

15 Mar 2014 10:01:17pm

I agree that some of this has gone way too far, to the point where it can be quite comical. I have some great memories of laughing hysterically in the field while discussing and recalling 'nanny-isms' with my work colleagues. I always felt a little sorry for some of the poor souls that spent time dreaming up more safety courses/requirements and wonder how hard their life must be when they drive out of the gates (or fly out more likely) into the nasty, real world. As a positive, I do confess to often applying a risk matrix mentality to my daily life; something I learned on these worksites, so it's not all bad.

Dave :

14 Mar 2014 7:51:21am

Good article Terry. Something we have all been lamenting for years. Unfortunately it is not your safety they care about but their own. They are so concerned about protecting their Zero Harm record that they must micromanage safety and control your behavior. Unfortunately this causes more harm than good. People get a false sense of faith and security in their bubble wrap and lose the ability to properly discern risks for themselves. These Zero Harm companies still suffer disaster big time (BP). This style of safety also ignores the most important risks - the mental ones - FIFO in mining causes more harm than any physical risks. I recommend this article by Dr Rob Long: http://www.safetyrisk.net/whats-faith-got-to-do-with-safety/

Anthony Tuck :

13 Mar 2014 11:13:10am

I once worked as a contractor for a "Big Australian" mining company. One day in the tea room the manager of the site said to me "Anthony, we are still hurting people. We need to stop this. How can we get people to behave at home the same way we do at work" I took his meaning to be the quasi requirement for people to perform the same safety rituals at home such as Take Fives and JHA/JSA's.

I said "good Idea" I explained that I was in the midst of breaking in a horse and had done all the ground work and was planning to ride the animal for the first time on the weekend. I suggested he come around to my place and assist me with the filling out of the Take Five and suggested we could complete a JHA to cover the task. He seemed interested and thought it was a good idea. I then suggested that the paperwork would be of good quality and that after completing the JHA that all the risks would have been identified and that HE could be the one to ride the horse.

He was suddenly mortified. I then said what we are going to do is he will stay out of the way. I suggested that I had planned this event very carefully by going through the appropriate training on the ground and that the reason I was prepared to ride the horse was due to my understanding that the horse was ready. I also explained that I was very experienced having don this many times over a 30 year period. I also explained that I was a very good rider.

There is no substitution for correct planning, preparation and knowledge and experience. No amount of paperwork can replace that. Paper safety lures both Managers and the unskilled into a sense of false security.

John Ross :

12 Mar 2014 4:05:54pm

I have come from an era when drillers and offsiders used to wear hardhats, a pair of stubbies and thongs at best. I worked for several years in the exploration industry and I never saw any serious accidents and everything was conducted safely and in what would then be call common sense. I then spent 15 years in the heavy earth moving industry as a fitter and the worst I saw was a few small cuts and bruises and yes again work was conducted safely and yet again those couple of words common sense. I shifted direction and became an environmental professional and have been in it for almost 17 years and I have work along side the exploration teams and fitters in the field and on plenty of mine sites and seen the introduction of never ending OH&S procedures and paper work that strangles the work that needs to be done. Over the years I see professionals in their choosen fields take their minds of what they are doing because of the safety police watching over their shoulders all the time and this creates an unsafe environment. Yes the majority of safety officers know how to be safe but they also need to realise that we know how to do our job safely as well in our own fields and they dont necessarily know how to do our job. That is what I have seen over the years and I dont see it getting any easier.

Dr Noel Preece :

12 Mar 2014 3:55:22pm

Terry, well done in presenting the incredibly tedious issues with inflexible OHS practices. I too have been an environmental consultant for decades, and have worked on working mine sites and exploration and EIS studies, and rehabilitation, and have found most of the same issues as you have with respect to fauna studies. Maybe we could encourage a few stiff-necked OHS people to learn to handle deadly snakes with thick gloves - it's much more dangerous. (I am a herpetologist, so know what I'm talking about). I have also prepared OHS rules and risk assessments for mining and other projects, and use the rule of 'best practicable' according to the situation and environment. Where the strict rules are necessary, I have no problem, but when the rules prevent us from doing our work, especially where our work is nowhere near a working mine, then the rules should be modified to 'best practicable'. Our experience and knowledge should be examined and tested and then relied upon for best practice, as long as they stack up. After all, we have survived for many years with many fewer rules.

Bedlam :

11 Mar 2014 9:19:37pm

Seriously...

OHS rules are introduced for the protection of workers from minor and/or major harmful incident. Yes it is a massive pain in the posterior but they are generally introduced as a result of someone being hurt when something could have saved them. Knives are not allowed because people repeatedly cut themselves and occasionally someone seriously harms or kills themselves. As an environmental professional, I would say that if you cannot complete your survey effort adequately because of OHS consideration, then you haven't scoped your job properly. Employers care if you don't get home safely - if that means they have to pay a bit more to get the job done right so be it.

Kevin :

19 Mar 2014 7:57:39am

Good article.A point overlooked when OHS is applied is the chooses Terry and his employer made when they decided to go into the ecology business. These include:- working in the outdoors. This immediately open Terry up to all sorts of hazards that most people don't face in their normal job (snake bite, clambering up cliffs, adverse weather conditions)- Working in isolation with poor communication and access to medical treatmentand I'm sure there are many more.The point I'm making is this. I'm assuming Terry was not press ganged into being an ecologist, but made this choice because this is his passion. Therefore the moment he made this decision consciously or unconsciously he accepted the risks involved. His employer also made the decision to go into the ecology business they accepted these risks also. The same applies to the client who buys there services.So in the context of the work Terry does a properly conducted risk assessment would conclude that Terry can access rugged snake infested country alone with clothes designed for freedom of movement and coolness and hat to keep the sun off him as opposed to protection from falling objects. Controls would be training in first aid, a appropriate 1st aid kit, a suitable radio etc.

Ray :

11 Mar 2014 5:30:11pm

I also sympathise. As a geologist employed predominantly in remote area exploration (mostly in Queensland), I have also been increasingly subjected to the same nonsense. Workplace OH&S as applied in exploration is now out of control, largely due to the definition of what constitutes a "mine" under the Queensland Coal Mining Safety and Health Act - and from other comments posted I daresay is little or no different in other jurisdictions. It's a contributing factor why local companies are increasingly moving their activities and spending their money overseas.

Erika :

11 Mar 2014 3:07:21pm

You don't have to be in the field survey business to sympathise with this article!

My big concern is that many of the "safety" measures that are imposed on workers actually make the job more dangerous. By the time someone is wearing long sleeves and a high-vis vest on a hot day, they are in danger of heat stroke before they even start working. Heat stroke or even heat exhaustion can lead to impaired decision making.

As one of the other correspondents pointed out, Australia does not have a great workplace health and safety record. So clearly, the WHS gone wild is not doing what it is supposed to do.

WHS appears to be more concerned with ticking boxes rather than making the workplace safer, just as anti-harrasment policies are all about having a policy, rather than doing anything about a problem.

James Gordon :

11 Mar 2014 10:05:23am

Like many areas of our society, field work is no different. The lowest common factor seems to take precedence and thus procedure are constructed that assumes some workers are unable to think for themselves. The majority of people are then restrained due to the 5% that are unable to make sound judgements. The insurance companies also must take some of the blame as they expect every safety measure to be met before they will provide insurance.

The western world does not seem to realise that our productivity has been drastically reduced due to this and the many other 'nanny state' regulations, despite the number of hours we are working increasing.

There has to be a middle ground between the standards of the developing world and the extreme over protection of the first world nations. One just has to look at history and the state of society and legislation prior to the fall of Rome and other great empires. There is a reason why China, India, and others are becoming so strong, and in part at least our labour laws (including OHS) do have a negative impact on our productivity and thus future.

selina :

11 Mar 2014 4:59:41pm

Les (Envio officer), good camera equipment is an absolute necessity for fauna and flora surveys, as it is a means to capture accurate and unambiguous images for records which contain morphological characters which are invaluable for identification purposes.

Mike :

Les Env Off :

Mike, yes agree with your general proposition, but valuable depictions of on-ground condition can be captured with one hand and a smaller quality kit.

I think we need to consider whether capturing glorious photographs for our professional website or facebook page is really what ecologists are being paid for.

The point is you don't need to use two hands to get valid survey report photographs and being pictured posing with a big SLR kit is not a well thought out part of what is a well thought through article.

rm :

11 Mar 2014 9:40:09am

Speaking as both a committed conservationist and a professional OHS consultant, this article and many of the responses to it are deep irresponsible and disturbing, I fail to see how an ecologist who ought to understand statistics would miss the point of the word "random", e.g. when it comes to deciding who should be subject to a random drug and alcohol screening. I fail to see how wearing the same protective footwear and full-length clothing that *everybody* on a working mine site is required to wear is going to inconvenience the ecologist more than any other mine worker (nor do I quite grasp how I would explain to all those other workers why the requirements that apply to them don't apply to the ecologists.)

But mostly, I struggle to understand why environmental consultants' safety is less important than all other mine workers so that the same legislative workplace health and safety requirements that apply to everyone else do not apply to them.

Working mine sites are dangerous places, a fact that the author of this article apparently doesn't have much understanding of. It is not in his or anyone's interest to wander into a mine blast zone, or the path of a fully loaded 400T ore truck (http://www.miningaustralia.com.au/news/female-contractor-killed-at-ravensworth-coal-mine.)

I deal with irresponsible laissez-faire attitudes to workplace safety on a daily basis. It disappoints me to have to respond to them coming from a trained scientist who ought to know better, I would like to see those "Nanny State" commenters explaining why we shouldn't have safety rules to the family of the unfortunate woman in the story linked above.

selina :

11 Mar 2014 5:08:40pm

RM, we're not talking about working on mine pit areas, blast zones or where mine operations are in full swing, but generally on tenements in vast swathes of otherwise unoccupied and unmodified Triodia hummock grasslands, mallee woodlands or shrublands. Often these sites are on pastoral leases, working alongside station staff/mangers and livestock and driving on pastoral well tracks or public roads. There is basic fieldwork PPE (appropriate clothing, first aid kits, water, communication equipment etc.), and then there are excessive requirements (chaperones, paramedics, hardhats) which add little to managing safety and add an inordinate amount of inconvenience to the point that the fieldwork is greatly constrained or simply cannot proceed.

Terry Reis :

11 Mar 2014 5:21:18pm

I appreciate that I may have not made this clear in my article but I don't work on mine sites. I work on mining leases, typically working cattle stations. I would normally only come in contact with a mine if I have to attend an induction to gain permission to access the lease. Whereupon I am more than willing to comply with their OH&S requirements because I do value my health and well-being. Those huge trucks scare me.

As for the 'random' comment, why include the testers in the alcohol-test when they are ostensibly testing to see if my offsider or me were capable of performing our duties safely? The testers went back to an office, or motel, after the test. We stayed in the field and worked.

This article has achieved a life far beyond what I anticipated. I am very interested in my health and safety and after almost 40 years of field work think that I am better qualified to determine what is or isn't safe than someone else with no experience in what I do.

And, the whole point of this article was about the consequences for wildlife. But perhaps that demonstrates short-comings in my writing and/or requires separate elaboration.

Hugh :

11 Mar 2014 5:24:03pm

The article referred to proposed mine sites not working mine sites.It is typical of the mining industry WHS to not recognise the difference.Do a risk analysis for the work and environment then put practicable controls in place. Do not impose dangerous controls such as excessive clothing and equipment.

Mervyn Sher :

Wendy :

13 Mar 2014 9:36:22am

I believe the issue is making PPE fit for purpose not 'one size fits all'. I have never understood why people doing field survey work which is not on a construction of mining site are required to were hard hats and safety boots. Surely 'fit for purpose' would dictate sunhats and good quality hiking boots as important for the personal safety of people who will hike kilometres in the heat. No one is arguing against OHS and PPE, just apply common sense and review the circumstances - one size has never fitted all.

boppa :

22 Mar 2014 4:39:07am

I now have an `interesting' issue- I cant get out of the cabin of my truck anymore on minesites!!!

I agree with the fact that ohs has gotten out of hand- I drive a truck, delivering the 4x4's that seem mandatory on all minesites- even for the execs that never leave the tar (but thats a different story)

I today struck a new issue- a mine site I deliver said 4x4's to has reduced its `work at height' rules from 2.4m to 1.8m- meaning that I can not actually get out of the cabin of my truck (2.1m- as measured by the ohs safety officer onsite!!) to actually unload my load- and as my company doesnt allow others to remove the cars from my truck (due to ohs and insurance issues lol) it is now impossible for me to actually deliver these 4x4's to them!!

god only knows what I am going to do at the end of the day when I have to get out of the cabin to go home- shock horror- am I to be trapped in my truck for the rest of my life??

OHS- grey little men looking for a reason to justify their jobs

(and to the above poster, when it gets to ridiculous extremes like today- WHY- oh why- should we think ANY of the ohs bullshit is real and/or justified???)

By getting to such extremes- it actually decreases the likelihood of anyone obeying ANY of their rules- simply because they ALL become tarred with the same brush....if one or more become foolish in the extreme- its much more likely that all will be ignored- simply by association...

Anon :

26 Mar 2014 10:32:07pm

Is this actually a real policy? Are you sure its not an overzealous personal interpretation of the sites policy by yourself or the OHS officer? I was under the understanding that access to a job is allowed such as climbing a ladder but actually undertaking a work task is when the working at height policies kick in.

Les Henley :

11 Mar 2014 8:43:56am

As a 'safety professional' I commiserate with all persons who are forced to adhere to generic risk controls on diverse work sites and who may be involved in different types of work where the risks are not generic.

The current legislation in Australia allows for a 'so far as is reasonably practicable approach'. But it seems that many organisations take this to mean that you don't need to do individual activity risk analyses, because that adds too much burden to their work - so far as reasonably practicable.

It seems it's easier to impose generic risk controls that get in the way of some activities than it is to identify the specific risk of each activity and control those.

I am ashamed of some of my 'peers' who it seems can't think past their noses.

Kevin Bonham :

10 Mar 2014 10:49:36pm

This culture increasingly permeates not only commercial operations in this field but also academic requirements, eg for university honorary staff status.

It should be made mandatory under Commonwealth law for any imposition of OH+S requirements by any government body or body receiving government funding or tax concessions to be conditional on passing a basic cost-benefit analysis.

The cost-benefit analysis should assess the likely advantage of the OH+S requirements in terms of life expectancy increase and downtime reduction of compliance against the disbenefits of the OH+S policy. The disbenefits should not only include downtime spent ticking OH+S boxes, but should also count all the time thus spent as a loss from the life expectancy of the person filling out the forms. Time spent filling out OH+S forms - if done by the person doing the actual work rather than an OH+S bureaucrat - should be treated as time spent dead.

Terry Vallance :

10 Mar 2014 5:03:51pm

Awesome article that really expresses the frustration I'm sure all ecologists feel. I am an aquatic ecologist so adding the water component introduces yet more layers at times. I have also lost count of the inductions completed including how to tag out conveyors, electrical equipment or avoid heavy equipment for sites that as you mention are bushland or not even on a lease area yet. I am all for safe work but it has at times gone too far.

Roger Lembit :

10 Mar 2014 3:13:34pm

As a flora consultant of 30 years standing I can only say this rings true. Many of the scenarios presented are ones I have experienced in recent years. My worst example is a three hour induction to complete a one hour survey. I had conducted contract work for the same employing company for over 20 years at at least 6 separate mines.

Enviro Officer :

10 Mar 2014 2:39:24pm

Give me a break. Yes, there is OH&S requirements. But you are being paid very handsomely to do your bugs and bunny searches. If ever there was a profession perpetually in a state of cognitive dissonance trying to resolve their "conservation ideals" and their employment by mining companies...it is consulting ecologists.

At the end of the day, as the client, all we really want to you to do is go out, look for some animals (but don't look to hard). Maybe reclassify some habitat as 'not of concern'.

ty :

SK1 :

10 Mar 2014 2:37:37pm

Fantastic article. It looks like bureacracy gone mad. The very system that is meant to protect one is the one that causes most angst - it is not a good system at all. It sounds like there is nothing wrong with a safety system, just that in this case it has gone overboard. Perhaps for the whole industry maybe? Under the new legislation, there is a new obligation for the employer (PCBU) to ensure consultation take place on any new or existing procedures. The employer is meant to have records for this consultation. If employees provide feedback in particular impracticalties etc about their procedures, the employer has to take them into consideration. Secondly, employees obligation is to "comply with reasonable policies and procedures" - well in this case a number of safety requirements whilst hilarious as they maybe, are not resonable and practical. My suggestion is to throw it back at the people who are managing the system, give them your feedback and demand for written response as per the new legislation. Refuse to comply with the procedures or increase/double/triple your chargeout rate.The legislation is written by lawyers and is meant to provide protection to us all, sometimes it is seen as a back covering exercise. With this thinking, we lose sight of many good things including the joy of work. Some of us still enjoy our work, no matter which side of the fence we happen to be.

Rsai :

09 Mar 2014 10:15:46pm

Great Article. Tick boxing has taken overcommon sense because of legislation. Asa person having worked in Australia for morethan 20 years and on international Oil andGas Projects, one of the key issues thatdrives what you wrote in your article is likelyto be as follows:Most Qld. Oil and Gas Projects company andPrincipal Contractors all have HSE Managers who are of American Origin towhom the Environmental Supervisors reportto. The American HSE Managers being extremely competent in their own countrydo not have an understanding of our lawsor our culture. Even the HSE Supervisorsare all American and the management is Americantoo. As a result they take a very systemicapproach which allows them to feel comfortable. Perhaps, when I worked in US, Canada, PNG andQatar on projects I would have in hindsight taken a moreconservative approach. This is human giventhat as a Manager you want all your team to be safe and this is quite important personally.

The believe the best way out is for you tosit down with your HSE Manager and developa Work Method Statement that works foryou. I have found a lot of success thus waywhen undertaking enviro work. Sometimesyou may be working with an Enviro Supervisoror advisor or their consultants and if this is a case ask for a Safety Review Meeting with a view of developing a WMS in consultation with the HSE Manager. Thanks for raising the issue which is real.

AJC :

09 Mar 2014 9:32:18pm

Bang on, and I particularly liked the last paragraph. We tracked our expenses on a large field project. Found that 45 percent of the jobs cost was for OHS training and day to day compliance. We needed the same qualifications as a d10 bulldozer driver to take a surface sample with a trowel. As a melonoma sufferer I feel the hard hat is more dengerous. It doesn't protect me as well as a decent hat, and I'm continually having to take it on and off getting in and out of the car. Trying raising that one with the OHS crews on these sites!!!

Glen :

09 Mar 2014 5:39:11pm

And hence with the increasing prevalence of nuisance species such as Lawyers, Accountants and Safety Officers the whole country is destined to go down the financial toilet.... Work is hard and getting harder, so many rules and regulations make it hard for anyone to actually get their job done

Sandy Gungan :

09 Mar 2014 1:48:32pm

I have been persuaded to contribute in response to the reactions this article has attracted. I suggest that those who are employed in the OH&S industry read no further. Likewise, for those employed within the mining industry who slavishly rise up to defend the industry whenever there is any criticism raised.

I have a long-standing appreciation of the development momentum OH&S requirements having worked routinely on coal and metaliferous mining operations since the late 1990’s in a similar role to Terry. For me, the steady layering of OH&S requirements probably reached a critical mass by about 2009.

The increasing burden and inflexibility of OH&S systems, much of which had no obvious linkage to the work of a field ecologist, was taking its toll. Field operations became less efficient, the capacity to be flexible in steering field operations was becoming limited, and the amount of field contact per “shift” was even shrinking. The ability to implement split-shifts became increasingly subject to the grudging approval (with a suitable JSA) of the ultimate decision-maker on the site. And no, I am not talking about field work in proximity to active operations, and in many examples, not even accessing our work sites via mine roads.

Yes, we have been able to negotiate better discipline-related OH&S practices with environment officers on a site by site basis, but those opportunities seem also to be diminishing with the threat of increasing responsibility being placed on those personnel. Of the tens of ecologists I have worked with in the field on mine sites, I only consider one a fool – he was thrust into my responsibility (against my will) during a project by the site manager (as an aside, that person did not even have a generic safety card). Of the many field surveys over the years, I can’t recall an “incident” of greater magnitude than cuts or bruises, though we were all keenly aware of the potential for worse, and often.

“But the tape grows ever more restrictive, and I can envisage a future when it prevents fauna surveys altogether” – Terry, you took the words right out of my mouth.

“The whole system needs review and certain aspects of it need to be controlled by medical personnel. Corporate legal advisors would be highly unlikely to have any interest in our well-being.” – clearly Derek is experienced and insightful.

Terry, the article is right on the money from my perspective. Well done.

fred :

08 Mar 2014 6:52:07pm

pity this article is now (8/3) hard to find on the ABC site.However governments eg in Vic would be pleased to read it as they may not want too much environmental assessment done. I wonder if all the cattlemen putting their stock back follow these procedures, since Napthine arrogantly has dismissed previous scientific work on this

David Manning :

08 Mar 2014 4:35:10pm

Great piece. I work as a trainer for Venomous Snake Removal Courses in WA. I travel to many mine sites (with the snakes). Amazingly no big OH&S hassles but yes I wear gloves, eye protection, long sleeves, pants and hard hats. The poor snakes haven't a chance! I used to work with animals in the film industry. I was often surprised at the randomness of Risk Safety assessment requirements. I remember once on a Monday working with a live goldfish, we needed a risk assessment, hazard analysis and a vet on set. On the Tuesday at the same studio I attended with a Lion - "yes park up round the back" I was told. No paperwork at all was requested. I think when the risk is big there is an assumption you know what your doing or another bureaucratic agency got to you first.

Derek :

07 Mar 2014 6:38:29pm

Thanks for raising the issue, Terry. The whole system needs review and certain aspects of it need to be controlled by medical personnel. Corporate legal advisors would be highly unlikely to have any interest in our well-being. Being told to drink as much as 10 litres of water because your sleeves have to be rolled down in high 30's heat is just plain ignorant. But it's okay to start smoking at 4:00am, ply yourself with a couple of kilos of sausages and hash browns (all supplied), and wash it all down with a constant supply of industrial grade coffee and energy drinks. Really??

My favourite experiences: Going down into a valley to get work done at the bottom with no radio contact, and having to climb back out to do an hourly call-up. Half an hour to get in, half an hour to get out (or more like 25/35). I pleaded in vain for 70-minute call-up intervals so I could get 10 minutes work done at a time. No site data could be collected. Or having to get access permission to a particular area controlled by a prep-plant operator terrified of snakes. Access denied. Or not being allowed to climb through fences. It's almost as if they don't want us to see anything. Surely not?

It might be possible that operational staff are manipulated for high productivity (fatty food, sugar and caffeine), and pests like ecologists are hampered by inflexibly applying the same rules for all. It's legally defensible. I hope it's not true.

PeeGeeBee :

07 Mar 2014 6:28:34pm

Most good safety people recognise that their procedures need to be practical, realistic and relevant. Ideally with as little 'bureacracy' as possible too although a paper-trail will always be needed as long as employees are allowed to sue employers for damages in the event of an accident, injury or worse. Maybe that's the answer - sack all the safety people but make it illegal for the injured, or family's of the dead, to sue for compensation. Then we could just ignore the fact that Australia has more injuries and deaths in the workforce than any comparable 'western' nation; or that cases of skin cancer, for example, are off the scale compared to anywhere else on earth. Much more fun to go back to the good ol', good old days when we could rely on that strangely rare commodity called 'common sense', wear stubbies and thongs and throw back a few beers for lunch, eh Terry?

Johno :

07 Mar 2014 6:14:14pm

On a related but side issue, modern demands from organizational constraints imposed by rigorous safety standards within resource companies as well as over reporting and Government bureaucracy makes the life of a mine site environmental practitioner interesting. For a profession that was made for the field companies and the regulators find heaps for the Enviro to do to keep us anywhere but in the field!

Spot the hazard :

Damien :

07 Mar 2014 5:33:21pm

OH&S exists for one reason alone-litigation protection. It would be comforting to assume that concern for our welfare was the driver here, but unfortunately in every single situation, red tape can always, always be boiled down to protection from somebodys' team of lawyers. I too am subjected to the daily threat of disciplinery action for not having sleeves correctly buttoned or the absence of an ineffectual pair of gardening gloves clipped to my side every day. The unfortunate downside of the advent of workers compensation is of course the endless pursuit, by the big companies' "educated" masses, of immunity from liability. If you close the law schools, the quality of life, for all of us who can assume personal responsibility at least, can maybe recover. Every time a lawyer gets paid, a little bit of normal life dies.

Ian :

07 Mar 2014 4:49:46pm

"The rules are seldom designed with fauna ecologists in mind." Throw in flora and geology from a previous comment.Some of the current requirements increase the risk of injury. If you were to walk the Milford Track you would buy the best walking shoes and most appropriate clothing available. Do it in steel caps and a hard hat and no one would feel obliged to commiserate. I have had staff walk over 300km through virgin Pilbara country obliged to wear steel caps and a hard hat.On the fauna side I was with some ecologists who managed to talk their way out of having to leave a trail of lights for ambulances while they were spotlighting fauna.

Margie :

Cammy :

07 Mar 2014 4:04:18pm

No doubt I was once trained by one of these sort of guys, in the mid 80's. The rolled sleeves, stubbies and thongs a giveaway, I am now wondering if it were some sort of *FS uniform. My GP seemed to have only one fear in the bush - big mulga snakes passing under his chair at night. He always denied this despite always let me camp on ground, while he rolled his swag up on the vehicle.

gone 70 :

Mark :

08 Mar 2014 2:24:56pm

I am travelling home from a fauna survey as I write and have experienced much of what is described here this week, and some he didn't. for example, all staff were ordered to wear boots and long trousers when not indoors due to a snake sighting (which the observer later said on reflection looked more like a legless lizard). Its often just comical but often has a dark side to it- in order to appease the god of 'safety' we are often forced to drive further for longer (a far riskier activity than most of our other tasks), to work longer in the desert heat because being outdoors in the dark is 'unsafe' and work longer and longer hours to achieve the survey goals. Preventable accidents caused by these half-baked safety rules are common but are basically hushed up as questioning a clients' preposterous 'safety' fetish is basically not allowed.

tom harley :

07 Mar 2014 3:51:40pm

I do all my field work in bare feet, shorts, no hat, short sleeved shirt, no sunnies, you watch closely where you walk, always look for shade, you don't walk into obstacles, like spider webs, and you see everything you need to see. My employees however wear boots, hats, sunnies etc, and miss everything except obstacles. My indigenous employees have difficulty with keeping shirts and hats on anyway.But then we don't work for mining companies or governments.Good on you for pointing out the obvious!

Duncan :

Whyway :

07 Mar 2014 3:11:05pm

We now live in a country where only two things truly work, shearers and windmills. The end is nigh, when wankers rule and common sense is dead.I can see a new protection authority will soon be need to protect a group of people that call themselves OH&S who are fast becoming the low life of our nation.We have become a nation of bloody wimps by a few that believe they have the right to bring this on us for our own good those that deny common sense in order to keep their, mainly useless jobs. These same people would never survive in any situation on their own in this once great land of ours.

RPL181 :

07 Mar 2014 4:01:08pm

Ahh, you've obviously had an unpleasant experience 'Whyway'. I'm a 'low life' in a 'mainly useless job'. Thanks for your judgemental appraisal of my life experience and how you've painted us all with the same brush. NFI

RPL181 :

07 Mar 2014 6:21:57pm

If you go along with all the B/S then why should you not be painted wih the same brush. No unpleasant experiance with you lot to date, but i had better not tell you that i walk around the bush at night without a light and have slept on the ground thousands of times without mishap. I have worked all my life without all the loaded rubbish you lot would have us wear, being a farmer i have avoided you idiots to now.

Chris :

Dave :

07 Mar 2014 1:49:36pm

you think you have problems Terry. try operating an aircraft from a mine airsrip.I go through a 124 item pre flight check listbofor every operation and have been often interupted it the middle of it by some perhaps well meaning but ignorant OH&S operater who wanted to know if I had done my "take five".

Kevin :

Jon :

07 Mar 2014 1:45:41pm

As somebody has already said, this is not legislative idiocy, this is idiocy self imposed by the industry. There are some real gems in this story, and the author is to be congratulated for speaking out.

The same silliness applies to geologists, whether working for a contractor or the company, and to company ecologists. Some gems I have encountered.

4WD's being banned because they have a higher rate of rollover. So how are people supposed to work away from the site on rough tracks?

Not being allowed to leave your vehicle in an emergency, you are supposed to sit tight and radio for help. All very well most of the time, until you bet bogged in a creek crossing in a radio dead zone. You can either leave your vehicle, climb the hill and radio for help - and get sacked. or stay with the vehicle until the emergency search finds you - and still get sacked for causing the emergency.

Contractors working on grid surveys across adjacent leases run by different companies. Both require safety boots, which is fair enough, except that one side requires lace up boots (elastic sided ones don't give enough support), the other requires elastic sided boots (because laces are a trip hazard). The poor contractors have to cross the boundary 20 time a day.

It comes out of the mind set well illustrated by Qantas: "safety is our number one priority". I always laugh when I hear that.

RPL181 :

07 Mar 2014 3:57:40pm

hehehe....getting bogged in a creek in a radio dead spot. That cracks me up. Hypothetically speaking, if the driver would've done a reasonable assessment and map/ground route recon, he may have averted getting bogged.Sorry mate, I'm off on a tangent.

Leftnut :

07 Mar 2014 1:37:02pm

Wearing safety helmets in itself is a safety risk,they reduce upward vision so the chance of contacting overhead objects is increased as is the chance of a neck injury because of the greater leverage on the spine

ED :

10 Mar 2014 12:58:15am

Can't tell you the number of times I've walked into overhanging branches whilst wearing a hard hat. A couple of times I've ended up flat on my back a s a consequence. This hasn't ever happened to me when wearing a normal floppy hat. I'd say it's the additional height that's the problem.

Johnny Danger :

... please someone tell me that it is ... these cannot possibly be real stories ... (locks self in padded cell due to mind melting at the prospect that this is not satire and this is what our species has devolved to)

Myrmecia :

11 Mar 2014 8:08:01pm

Not a Bechtel OHS dipstick around Gladstone was it? Had the same question asked of me there. Best way I found to deal with twits like that is put in an RFI for what their contractual understanding of nocturnal is. Include the construction manager, site manager, foreman and the highest ranking shiny bum who's email you can get. They take the less than bright safety thing in for a short sharp conversation involving his now limited career options. From then on you tend to get left alone :)

Terry Reis :

07 Mar 2014 1:25:28pm

Paul once more,

My apologies, having re-read your comment you're referring to legislation and my first response is misleading. But of course, if you want employment as a consultant you have to decide what constraints you're willing to work within.

James :

07 Mar 2014 9:37:04pm

GDay Mate,I remember these situations working for BAAM, I sypathise deeply!I have since become an OH&S Rep, The course is expensive but I reccommend it as it gives you a great understanding of the Work Health and Safety Act and gives you the legal right, if a company's policy is putting your safety at rsk) to stop their works until they remedy the situation. Always worth brushing up on the legislation so you know how to throw it back in their faces (instead I gave up on consulting and moved to conservation!)

Mike Olsen :

Terry Reis :

07 Mar 2014 1:21:41pm

Paul, I am well able of why these rules have been designed and I do address this in my article, see the extracted text hereunder. But I have also undergone considerable negotiation with client companies about what is, and isn't, appropriate for my work. Generally, the best concession I achieve if permission not to wear gloves when catching reptiles. Though that usually involves much debate about whether or not I should be even searching for venomous snakes, let alone handling them. Which I do as infrequently as possible, I hasten to add.

The rules are seldom designed with fauna ecologists in mind. They instead reflect an inflexibility by companies whose typical activities on a mine, for example, are indeed hazardous and who take their duty of care seriously.

Peter :

07 Mar 2014 12:52:15pm

Relinquish your rights to any compensation from your employer and I'm sure they would let you wear whatever you wanted as long as it doesn't impact on one of your work coleagues.If you expect compensation then expect to comply with the safety measure deemed necessary to prevent a workplace injury.Its not a nanny state its one of litigation for ones own stupidity.

Eracer :

07 Mar 2014 4:30:16pm

I would gladly relinquish my rights to compensation to re discover those early days as a fauna consultant where no cliff was too high, no cave was too tight, no rock was too large to lift, and no snake was too venomous to capture.

Phil :

Larry :

07 Mar 2014 12:30:46pm

Hilarious but also sadly true. Good on you for speaking out.. The OH&S rule-makers (and minders) typically have no conception of what fauna & flora surveys involve or how to safely interact with nature.

Worth noting is the contrast between the excessive and misguided precaution applied to OH&S and the lack of precaution applied to decision-making on environmental matters.

RosieA :

07 Mar 2014 3:26:06pm

Your comment on the contrast between application of OH&S rules and environmental decision making is apt. I find it unbelievable that people will take OH&S regulations to such an absurd level but on the other hand totally disregard climate change, have no hesitation in clearing remaining wild areas on which we depend for our well-being and will behave in other such environmentally irresponsible ways that actually hurt us in the longer term.

It seems to me the problems are accountability and litigation. People/companies can be held responsible for employees and contractors but no-one person/company is responsible for environmental collapse. I think that not only do we need to do something about the drivers of the current system as the system is clearly non-functional as it is, but also increase accountability for the longer-term well-being of society and our environment (and I don't necessarily mean through litigation though this may be part of the mix).

Graham :

07 Mar 2014 12:24:41pm

Great article Terry, enjoyed it very much. I'm also a consultant and I've "fired" 2 large mining companies and refuse to work for them. The rules and regulations they impose on people who want to do an honest day's work go beyond the pale and are an insult to most people's intelligence. Good on Stephen for getting paid while sitting around obeying rules and regulations. Sounds like a good lurk but just think of the wasted money while hundreds, if not thousands, of people sit around getting paid while actually not doing anything. The OH&S industry has thrived by people peddling fear and litigation to large companies and their managers. Time to get some sanity back into this industry sector!

Stephen Corsini, Archaeologist :

07 Mar 2014 12:03:24pm

Well said! If it wasnt for OH&S there would be 40% unemployment. As a heritage consultant (archaeologist and ethnographer) conducting field surveys throught WA, I have faced many similar constraints. Being required to wear a fire retardant refelctive taped heavy work shirt, and a plastic hard-hat rather than a light weight cotton shirt and a broad brimed bush hat while doing heritage surveys in a remote exploration area many miles from any machinery or blast radius. In my experience thebigger the company the more restrictive are the work practices - in my case I dont mind, I get paid by the hour, so, the delays of 3 or 4 hours while someone with a tyre changing certification comes out to change a flat in realtiy means I get a whole days pay for sitting in the bush chatting with Aborignal elders.

Eracer :

07 Mar 2014 4:35:14pm

But Stephen, you would be upset if those elders were in a cave more than 2m up a vertical cliff face and you could not get to them without a) breaking working at height restrictions or b) having them die of natural causes waiting for Take 5, fall arrest gear, scaffolding etc etc

You are just very lucky to be able to chat to them while your tire is fixed. We zoologists, on the other hand, gnaw our fingernails off knowing that the sun is hitting aluminium box traps with live animals in them.......and we are already late because we had to do morning stretches at 6am before being released to clear the traps that we wanted to check at 430 am before the Pilbara summer sun popped is savage head over the horizon.

Paul :

07 Mar 2014 11:57:54am

What Terry fails to realise, or realises but fails to inform the reader, is that what he is not being subjected to specific Health & Safety regulations when performing field work as such. What he is being subjected to is uninformed application of corporate policies and procedures, designed by the company in question not the government, so that they could meet their duty of care obligations.Often in the mining sector we see site rules (inductions, PPE or drug & Alcohol testing regimes) that are reasonable to apply to a working mine site, but are less applicable to other areas of operation performed by the mining company, like exploration work or field wildlife surveys.Modern OSH or WHS laws are not prescriptive in their application to the workplace. Each individual organisation must devise a means to protect employees from harm to their health "so far is is reasonably practicable". It looks like Terry has been caught up in a corporate bureaucracy where there exists a risk analysis skills vacuum.The need for accreditation or formal certification of OSH/WHS professionals and practitioners is made clearer when viewed through the lens of Terry's situation.

GC :

07 Mar 2014 12:17:30pm

Absolutely correct Paul - none of those things is prescribed in legislation. Believe it or not there are companies out there that are able to apply controls based on reasonable risk assessment not blanket nannyinsm.

Paul :

07 Mar 2014 1:55:46pm

Define "reasonable".

For every one that "can", there are dozens that "will not" & hundreds of "can nots".

The laws are structured around sound self-regulation principles, however they were crafted not to remove the onus of responsibility for self, this is a cornerstone of the Duty of Employees concept, but rather to ensure that the employer provides a reasonably safe place of work and systems to support that work.

Pre-Robens legislation was prescriptive and rightfully deserves its place as a legal relic of a bygone era, however safety & health legislation was enacted across the "Westminster" world as a result of the rate of injuries or fatalities that were occurring as a result of poor performance or negligence.

Before you decry nanny-ism, have a long hard think about the cost society bears in relation to workplace death and injury.

Those who create the risk, must be responsible for managing that risk.

RPL181 :

07 Mar 2014 2:48:35pm

ALARP - As Low As Reasonably Possible. Reasonably being the key word. It is too easy to go straight to PPE as the enforced answer, instead of actually conducting a risk assessment. Hierachy of Control.If Terry is in the open paddocks, is there a risk of something falling and hitting his head? Unlikely. Therefore does he need to wear a hard hat? No. But the risk is UV exposure is present, so his broad brim floppy hat is more reasonable.

Paul :

Hamadryad :

07 Mar 2014 1:40:31pm

These regulations are concocted by companies because government departments demand it. It is ludicrous to believe that, left to their own devices, profit-making ventures would waste so much money on such futile pursuits. Real jobs are on the decline, so millions of people have to make a living by imposing obstacles and limitations on others.

John :

07 Mar 2014 2:19:15pm

That is dead on. Another example is long sleeves and 14th day RDO. I've had OHS Officers with a Cert IV and 6 months experience argue with me that both of these are legislated in law!Absolutely ridiculous. Both are self imposed standards that for some reason (arse covering) have been taken up and applied by one and then many sites.

Grumpy181155 :

07 Mar 2014 2:22:30pm

Actually I am sure Terry does realise that these rules are applied by the companies and not the Government. He states that in the third paragraph and if it was government rules they would apply to all his jobs.

OH&S is a great idea but in some cases, as Terry illustrates, it is a monster off the leash.

Package :

07 Mar 2014 6:48:08pm

While many of these rules are imposed by companies, they are done so to protect the owners/shareholders of these companies from the often ridiculous judicial interpretation as to the scope of work place safety.

If you actually owned a business then you too I suspect would want to protect yourself as much as possible from an increasingly litigious society in which the general thinking is to blame others and not take responsibility for one’s own actions.

As a result, business owners are forced to put in place overly complicated rules and regulations that cater to the "lowest common denominator", to ensure that as much as possible, they are protected against legal action from even the most illogical, irresponsible and stupidest actions by the lowest common denominator.

There have even been cases where employees have deliberately flouted the imposed and known rules and the business owner has been found at least partially guilty.

As I understand it, a conviction for failing to provide a "safe" working environment is now a criminal offense, not to mention the time, effort, business disruption and cost of trying to defend yourself against such a claim.

Then there is the additional cost of insurances if your OH &S standards are in anyway lacking. How far would you go as a business owner to protect yourself against this?

Kevin :

19 Mar 2014 8:37:12am

An excellent point about legislation. Most of this nonsense comes about because of miss-application of legislation. This applies particularly to the Qld mining legislation which gives miners wide powers to make rules to suit their particular circumstances.

Mark Sewell :

James :

07 Mar 2014 11:51:17am

Having very seriously recently been considering undertaking a degree in ecology myself, this is a real turn off. But not surprising in the slightest. What will it be like in 5-10 years time when I might be ready to start doing similar work to you? Perhaps I should look elsewhere. This sort of nanny state stuff is utterly ridiculous, and not why I want to get into the field. That's if "cutting green tape" will eventually mean not even bothering to check what's going to be destroyed, completely removing the need for skilled person's such as yourself.

Marc Hendrickx :

07 Mar 2014 9:47:24am

Thanks Terry, Perhaps the most intelligent and interesting article I have seen posted on this blog.

Unfortunately we are being held in the grip of "experts" who have little concept of the notion of weighing risk and enforce the precautionary principal at the drop of a hat. Hmmm wonder where else this has relevance?

Snarkus :

07 Mar 2014 12:28:39pm

@Marc, yes t aviation.another article on ABC site about Rex and runways Similar hypersensitive noise made at NSW country a few years back over safe parallel runway use. On an airfield where this had been done for decades without accident.Well put argument. Similar processes at work in IT where paperwork is more important than getting clients computers working quickly. A culture of fear has driven "butt covering" and taken over the relics of western civilization

frustrated too :

07 Mar 2014 9:27:38am

Great article. The nanny state is out of control.The question is: how do we get common sense back? One way would be to employ fewer OHandS staff and let people who actually do the field work take more control of their personal safety.

Yellow Helmet :

07 Mar 2014 1:11:32pm

OH&S is an absolutely monstrous Industry - multi $Billion in Australia, in growth phase. Once mini-fiefdoms are established every effort is made to expand, grow, control more staff....justified in the pretense of Safety etc etc. Soon these consultants will require flashing lights on all clothing and hard hats, as well as "loud beeps" if they walk backwards, or forwards !

Mych :

billy :

07 Mar 2014 2:46:36pm

there is a way to get common sense back and that is to accept more work place deaths.......while also possibly enhanceing the gene pool at the same time!

I used to have a quadbike, a handgun for protection, 4x4, camp out for weeks, fly in helicopters and work alone in the NT untill a little bureaucrat in the weed management branch took over and made the important work we did impossible to complete.

David of Brisneyland :

John :

07 Mar 2014 2:14:34pm

I work in the OHS space and have the added benefit of being an Environmental professional in mining working for a mid-tier public company that fortunately still applies common sense. I find this article to be dead on and one of the reasons I chose to apply OHS in a smaller company.I'm a bit dubious about the no-urinating in the field rule. On site and in camp, I can understand but in the middle of a pastoral station under a Mallee? Hmmmm.I have seen protected fauna left in Elliot traps in the heat of day and thereby die because Biologists are not allowed to leave for the survey area prior to doing a pre-start meeting and breathalyser and myriad of other safety protocols back on site. The general rule is traps should be cleared early in the morning and often consultants are delayed from going into the field until well after the sun is high.Its disgraceful but fortunately only common practice in the biggest oil and gas companies and larger multinational miners, which strangely enough have system heavy and prescriptive approaches to safety reflective of immature organizations and still injury, maim and kill people.Unfortunately most of these standards are written by corporate based OHS Managers and Officers that have either never been in the field or had a desk based job for a long time. All I ask biological survey consultants is to to do a proper risk assessment that shows me they have considered potential and likely hazards and put controls in place to mitigate or reduce those risks. We are grown ups and duty of care does not need to be so onerous.

John :

07 Mar 2014 3:00:56pm

Hate to raise a simple point here, but if anyone here accidently or otherwise was injured at work and (within their right as an Australian) decide to sue their employer for breach of duty of care, I wonder what the judge would say if they use the 'PPE equipment and safety procedures should not have to be followed’ defence. Imagine the wasted cost of stupid court cases and cost to the tax payer to pay a judge to sit though endless cases that really could have simply been avoided by following some pretty basic safety principles.Works both ways.

Lazlo Panaflex :

07 Mar 2014 3:13:33pm

Homo safetiness is a sub species that branched off early in hominid evolutionary history. It was considered early on to be an aberration that ironically was poorly adapted for survival. The safety measures it imposed on subsistence hunting and the banning of fire proved to be maladaptive.

The species though appears to have maintained a cryptic population in the broader and more advanced population of Homo sapians. How it was able to do this given the safety risks that procreation poses, is a scientific mystery, although perhaps the requirement to maintain three points of contact at all times was able to be complied with.

The population of the species exploded in the late 1990s and today now represents a threat to the survival of Homo sapians.

Eracer :

07 Mar 2014 4:44:17pm

Pity we will never get to investigate the ecological implications of this outstanding example of competitive exclusion. There simply would be too many forms to fill out and Homo sapians would likely already be extinct prior to the commencement of the first field study..

If it makes anyone feel any better: Mining has OH&S. Academic Ecological Research has Animal Ethics. Both are as painful and as inhibiting at the other. To the young undergrad student of ecology - you are screwed either way.

Mike :

07 Mar 2014 5:58:40pm

Excellent article by Terry.....think I am about your vintage in ecological field studies, with similar experiences. Of course we all want to return safely home to our families; most of us also want to feel we have done our job well. Occasionally we meet safety officers who will sit down and discuss our special needs: wide-brimmed hat, lightweight khaki clothes, hiking boots (not steel-caps), a simple call-in procedure, camping on site rather than driving for an hour at both sunrise and sunset, and into the sun at both times, flexibility in our movements and so on. As a profession, we need to be helping the OH & S practitioners to understand what it is we do, but those practitioners need to be prepared to listen. Safety is not achieved by applying generic rules but, as we are so often told, by assessing the risks of a particular activity.

Steve Sandiands :

13 Mar 2014 3:54:01pm

Strange - in all of that about OSH regulation , not one mention of a decent JHA, CRAW or proper risk assessment. OH and incidentally not one mention of a GDP (even enviro's need GDP's to do things. Conversely look at where a GDP is issued for something like an airfield where cleared ground is required ongoing and then deal with enviro's who require a further GDP to maintain regular clearing to be compliant with OLS requirments. But let's be honest - mmost of this is driven by different interpretations of OSH or enviromental legislation, even differing interpretations by the relevant regualtory bodies in the first place. At least NOPSEMA has pulled everything under their one banner to stop unnnecessary duplication and is a good step to getting a single consistent approach. Risk based approach and asessment would alleviate nay - eliminate a lot of Teri's issues and concerns and even make it easier to do his work.

Subscribe

How Does this Site Work?

This site is where you will find ABC stories, interviews and videos on the subject of Environment. As you browse through the site, the links you follow will take you to stories as they appeared in their original context, whether from ABC News, a TV program or a radio interview. Please enjoy.

Best of abc.net.au

Cattle industry photography comp

An annual photo competition run by the Northern Territory Cattlemen's Association produced some incredible pictures.